Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1969 (JHR)

Kedar Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-16

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has iner alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to remove the anomaly after fixing and determining the salary of the petitioners, like the similarly situated counter-parts in the State of Bihar, in the revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 by way of financial up-gradation and after taking into account the amount admissible and payable to them in the form of Reducible Pay Protection (RPP) and pursuant thereto further prayer has been made for pay-fixation in the revised scale and to fix the pension in the revised pay and pay all pensionary and consequential benefits with interest. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners being senior employees in Jharkhand Police Wireless have been compelled to receive less salary in comparison to their juniors on account of existence of an anomaly continuing prior to 01.01.1996. Initially, a pay protection in the form of Reducible Pay Protection was granted to the petitioners by the erstwhile State of Bihar, which was later on withdrawn by the twin States, without removing the anomaly, hence, the same was declared illegal by the Hon''ble Courts and accordingly the State of Bihar rectified the anomaly after fixing and determining the salary of the similarly situated counter-parts of the petitioners in the revised scale w.e.f 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 by way of financial up-gradation, but, the petitioners have not been granted such benefit till date. 3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in a number of cases, including W.P. (S) No. 7235 of 2012, liberty was reserved with the petitioner to file representation before the concerned respondent and direction was given to said respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order within stipulated period of time. If such direction is issued in the case at hand, the grievance of the petitioners shall be redressed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute such course of action. 5. In such view of the matter, it would be apposite to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to file representation along with all supporting documents before the Secretary, Home Department-respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute such course of action. 5. In such view of the matter, it would be apposite to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to file representation along with all supporting documents before the Secretary, Home Department-respondent no. 2, who on receipt thereof shall consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that if the petitioners are found entitle for the claim, the admissible arrears of monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of six weeks thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.